Why does everyone continue to talk about DADT? The recent law, even though it was called the repeal DADT Act did nothing of the kind. It may, possibly, perhaps, at some point in the future repeal USC 10, Section 654 which outlaws homosexual ACTS.

Even that is not a given. There are enough certificationsand other requirements that I am willing to bet that this time next year homosexual activity will continue to be illegal in the military.

Note that I said activity. Homosexuality itself is not now and never has been (AFAIK) illegal in the military.

It is only acts that have ever been illegal.

You all really need to read the bill. It is less than 2 pages long, easy to understand.

Sarah has a young family, including a veteran who served in Iraq. Those folks don't see why gays their age need to be put down, so Sarah will not go there just to please some legalistic Christians.The hard thing for Sarah will be when the Journolisters coordinate a shoving match to demand she come out in favor of being gay or else instead of just refusing to use the State to discriminate against gays as has been done by law in the past.

Everything old is new again. Why? That is, why all the reaction, as if this is a revelation?

Sarah Palin, when she was governing, separated personal beliefs from governing beliefs in some areas (specifically, not-core governing areas). This strikes me as more in line with her original concept of governance and its reach.

Of course I could be wrong. But I'm not so sure I am, in this instance.

Usually when you pass on a remark without comment it is because you agree with it.

Not necessarily, I'd say, Revenant, and most especially with regard to Twitter (though I'd stand by that even with regard to blogging). Assume at your own peril, is more like it. Of course your experience might be entirely unlike mine. Of course! Equally, my experience might be entirely unlike yours.

I could be completely wrong--100% wrong! 200% wrong! 1000% wrong!--but I suspect, *strongly* suspect, that Sarah Palin, personally, actually views homosexuality as primarily a religious, and therefore private-life [not government] issue (with gay *marriage*, as opposed to civil unions, obviously including partner benefits, as a separate issue). I suspect she'd vastly prefer it simply not be the pervading issue that it is for so many of her constituency (or, for that matter, that it is for the constituency of her opponents).

I'd bet serious money that, in her heart of hearts, Sarah really doesn't care all that much either way--that is, that if it were possible in her today's politics, she'd fall more into the live-and-let-live camp.

Comments at CNN are not complimentary of her and whether or not she even put the thought or initiative into publicizing the original chirp on her own. They believe it was spoon-fed to her, that she probably didn't even understand the original comment, and don't understand why anyone cares in the first place what she says. In the words of one of them:

Claiming to be homosexual is not grounds for discharge. Claiming to have engaged in homosexual acts is.

Wrong. Claiming to be homosexual is, unless a follow-up investigation finds that "the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts". "Homosexual act" is defined by the section as "any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires".

Any member of the armed forces who stated he was homosexual was subject to prosecution unless he was able to demonstrate that he had no inclination to touch another man in a sexual way. It doesn't matter if he ever HAD touched another man in such a way -- he had to demonstrate that he wasn't even inclined to.

Quite simply, he had to demonstrate that even though he'd said he was gay, he wasn't really gay.

As for homosexual marriage, that would seem to be prima facie evidence that one has engaged in homosexual acts.

Grounds for strong suspicion, yes. Evidence, no. In either case that section doesn't even consider homosexual acts -- even if you could prove you had never committed such an act, the attempt at marriage was sufficient for prosecution.

Re Lawrence etc, perhaps you are right. So how come nobody has successfully claimed that this prevents enforcement of Section 654?

Because Section 654 has been obsolete since 1993, which was about a decade prior to the Lawrence decision.

You may be right about unfairness of not going after heteros for blowjobs.

I didn't say anything about "unfairness". I just pointed out that if the military targets homosexuals for prosecution under 654 while ignoring the (orders of magnitude more common) heterosexual violations of it, the military is going to get taken to the cleaners in civil court. The court takes a dim view of government agencies who deny people equal protection under the law.

(1): I did read DADT, and you couldn't be more wrong. The article specifically cites "the propensity to engage in homosexual acts" as being sufficient for dismissal. No actual act was necessary; you were subject to prosecution for the mere inclination.

(2): I did not say it was "unfair" that homosexuals might be singled out, I just pointed out that the military will get taken to the cleaners in civil court if they try it.